Should all education be privitized?

[© tweed]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

[© tweed]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

Then you'd have people taking out loans they can't pay off.  Then we open debtor's prisons?

It simply wouldn't work.

[© tweed]

Except it does work for college.

Different situations.  A large amount of the people who attend college aren't societal failures; most of those people don't go to college.  These people usually will earn enough money later on to pay off debts.

In Wayne county, this won't always be the case.

Also, you can make the argument that people can afford to pay off 4 years worth of student loans, but not 16 years.  There'd likely be a big difference in price.

[© tweed]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

Then you'd have people taking out loans they can't pay off.  Then we open debtor's prisons?

It simply wouldn't work.

Schools would simply teach people for a share of their income for a certain number of years when they got a job.

What if they never get a job?  And how do you know how private companies would bill their clients?

[© tweed]

You told me how the private companies will bill their clients.  You said they will bill them by taking a share of their income after they get a job.

But if it's a private company, how do you know how they will bill their clients?  They can bill them any numbers of ways and not just by the method you laid out.

[© tweed]

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

Exactly--and other methods most certainly would all but prohibit lower-income families from getting an education and make social mobility a thing of the past.

It'd put us back in the deep south of 1880.

[© tweed]

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

Exactly--and other methods most certainly would all but prohibit lower-income families from getting an education and make social mobility a thing of the past.

It'd put us back in the deep south of 1880.

Yes, because poor people are not a market at all.

That doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to an education.  And some of the poors become contributors to society because of educational oppurtunities.  Privitization of education would ruin these opputunities.

[© tweed]

They're not out to get poor people, no.  But you can't argue attaching a fee to education would extend education oppurtunities.

What it would likely do is increase the quality of the education of the top 75-80% of society, and end the educational oppurtunities of the other 20%.

Corporations would make more money by charging a lofty sum to the top 80% than they would offering a reasonable deal to everyone, or most everyone.